An inconvenient truth

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Hippikos

Oh... I'm sorry Flint dear, did you feel left out?

No, sweetie-pie, I simply asked for clarification of your apparent non sequitur. "lack of meaning relative to the comment it follows"

[headsplice]

Originally Posted by Hippikos

Correlation does not prove causation and that cause must precede effect.

Um...duh. I direct you to my long-ass post.
We aren't going to prove anything either way until we have enough data to make that proof. Unfortunately, if we prove that global warming is, in fact, caused by man, it will (probably) be too late to do anything about it because we waited too long for proof. I'm in favor of erring on the side on continuing human existence, because, you know, I like living.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

I don't have a chart made by some omniscient group of scientists, but the whole issue feels manufactured, like one of those "clinical studies" done by a company that wants to sell beauty products on TV.

If it were real, how would they handle it differently?

[mrnoodle]

Al Gore would take the proceeds of the movie and use them to buy as many people solar-powered bicycles as he could afford. They believe it enough to make political hay, but not enough to affect their own actions. Someone who yells 'incoming!' yet doesn't duck, is probably just trying to see if you'll jump.

The metaphor store was closed today.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

Al Gore would take the proceeds of the movie and use them to buy as many people solar-powered bicycles as he could afford.

With the popularity of SUVs, affordability is not the reason for the lower popularity of fuel efficient vehicles. For the price of an SUV, you could get a hybrid and several bicycles. A bicycle giveaway would be nothing but a stunt if all of the bicycles went straight into the garage and were never used. The money has to be spent wisely. Education is what is needed.

They believe it enough to make political hay, but not enough to affect their own actions. Someone who yells 'incoming!' yet doesn't duck, is probably just trying to see if you'll jump.

Al Gore and the entire Inconvenient Truth movie production/promotion are carbon-neutral. All of Gore's profits go back into the education effort.

What is a serious example of something Gore would do differently if it were real?

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

What is a serious example of something Gore would do differently if it were real?

Has he gotten his families money out of Occidental yet?

[Happy Monkey]

Six years ago, apparently.

[Griff]

Maybe he means it then.

[tw]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

What are we supposed to do about this menace? Stop driving? Stop heating our homes? Stop eating red meat? Where's the evidence that it would do any good, anyway?

Wow - I thought myopic rationalization died back in the early 1970s when same MBAs were complaining how we would all have to drive Pintos to average 20 miles per gallon. They did that because they were - by definition - anti-American. Also called quitters. mrnoodle, you are doing a same extremist and anti-American logic.

You were provided sources for answers. Even my short posts offered some solutions to your questions. Short? Yes. Sound byte posters hope you are as stupid as to, for example, not demand numbers and underlying reasons why. Those with a quitter’s attitude cried, "woe is me, we are doomed, so we should not try". That attitude is my exact definition of anti-American.

Like 1960s air and water pollution, 1980s water toxins, 1990s ozone layer depletion - in each case the 'woe is me' problem was solvable even as the liars among us denied the problem exists - because their anti-Americanism fears change, innovation, and solutions. Each solution created more jobs, more wealth, healthier lives, less energy consumption, less poverty, pdoucts that stopped failing ..... And yet still we have quitters who once said we would all have to drive Pintos to average 20 miles per gallon.

Article in September 2006 issue of Scientific American called "A Plan to Keep Carbon in Check" defines a 15 slice pie. Any nation that provides any of maybe five slices will be a wealthy and well employed nation. Those who innovate will be selling the future to others with an MBA (quitters) attitude. Only thing that creates jobs, wealth, stability, and better lives is innovation. Those who deny global warming are same type who also said we would all have to drive Pintos to average 20 miles per gallon. They also hyped fears of no more meat, stuffing into tiny boxes, homes without heat, and other lies. All this when, for example, homes were built without insulation. Zero – nada – none. Those who fear had to even proclaim that we could not insulate buildings – because they were that anti-American – and had no science knowledge.

Mankind is contributing adversely to a problem called global warming. Environmental changes are so great that this situation cannot be ignored. Notice how xoxoxoBruce ignores the problem by even denying a simple chart - and posts by never providing numbers. But again, the real questions are not found among those trained to be professional liars such as MBAs, salesmen, lawyers, politicians, communication and English majors, and anyone who sees answers in the words "conservative" and "liberal". The answer is among those whose job means no political agenda. Whose system is structured to find reality despite human nature. The answer is found in a question that only patriotic Americans would be asking: ie how fast and how destructive.

And still we have people lying to all - proclaiming what their peers also did in 1972. They said, using Rush Limbaugh logic, that we would all have to drive Pintos to average 20 miles per gallon. Those were and are the classic anti-innovative, anti-Americans.

[wolf]

Originally Posted by Flint

That's why we have peer review. Bad science will be exposed and dis-credited.

Peer reviewers have their own agendas, hobby horses, and pet theories, and woe be to the researcher who presents solid research that goes against conventional wisdom.

Most of those articles don't see print.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by wolf

Peer reviewers have their own agendas, hobby horses, and pet theories...

I don't dispute that. However, statistically, the system is designed to root out flawed ideas (eventually).

I just read an interesting bit in Scientific American, in a review of two books which are critical of String Theory, which said that young Physiscists who don't even believe in String Theory, feel pressured to pursue it, because they feel they can get a Professorship that way. Apparently "that's the way the wind blows" by and large in the scientific community, right now. However, the fact that people are writing books expressly to criticize String Theory, and the books are getting press in Scientific American, indicates, to me, that a shift is taking place. In other words, science, the institution in principle, is rising above science, the institution in practice, exactly as it is designed to do.

Originally Posted by wolf

...woe be to the researcher who presents solid research that goes against conventional wisdom.

I don't dispute that, either. Science, like all human endeavors, can move at a glacial pace.

However, another thing that happens alot is something like an untrained hobbyist claims to have invented a perpetual motion machine in his garage, and then complains that the scientific community won't take him seriously. Usually there are fundamental errors in this type of "research" that a first-year college student could spot from a mile away. (Not to say that the guy might not be right, and the college coursework might be wrong, and this might all come to light, eventually...)

Also, another thing that happens alot is that those who criticize science as having an "agenda" have an even bigger agenda themselves.
Such as: religious dogmatists attacking evolution, etc. etc. etc.

[xoxoxoBruce]

OK, where were we, helped a friend celebrate her birthday last night and I see it’s been moving here.
Now I started this thread because of that magazine article claiming human contribution to Global warming was very small and had credible evidence to back it up. I couldn’t dispute it, even though it flew in the face of “common knowledge”, I figured you guys would shoot it down right away with something I didn’t know, but on the contrary I found nobody could really shoot it down, just poo-poo it. I also found there is much more disagreement than I thought and that the same numbers look big to some and small to others.

I tried to pin it down to some key points but no answers there either, only generalizations.
Some are entirely skeptical of the whole scenario having heard so many wrong predictions in the past which is probably the media’s fault.
Some buy the problem and are saying, yeah but, what do we do
Some think Global Warming is entirely man made.
I’m sure some think it’s God’s Punishment for queers and abortion.

I think it’s another normal upswing in the natural cycle of the Earth, that man has given a kick so it’s happening faster and probably go higher. But I don’t know if it’s all that bad that it does, and don’t know what if anything we can do about it.

Then there’s tw who reads scientific articles, grabs some buzz words, the starts yelling the sky is falling and it’s all Bush’s fault. Postulating that he, unlike us, is a true patriot and smarter than us because he thinks he’s the only person in the world that knew that Nixon was a crook and there were no WMDs in Iraq.
Tedious at best and I’m getting fed up with the personal attacks on me.

He’s probably got a good point, but posting a graph with no background is bullshit. It’s got to be validated
Being the warm and wonderful guy I am, I’m going to help him out here.

I believe the graph came from a Scientific American Magazine? Since I don’t subscribe and I’m not paying $40 to read it online or go to the library.
I found the source, CDIAC (Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center at Fort Knox) and OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) organized in 1960.
Every graph I could find refers to an earlier work and the daisy chain leads to Lorius et al. (1985) and amended as cores became available
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/vostok/jouz_tem.htm

Because isotopic fractions of the heavier oxygen-18 (18O) and deuterium (D) in snowfall are temperature-dependent and a strong spatial correlation exists between the annual mean temperature and the mean isotopic ratio (18O or dD) of precipitation, it is possible to derive ice-core climate records.

Then this data was peer reviewed and accepted. That means nobody could find anything wrong with the method. The question is, does this Antarctic sample represent the whole earth properly since the Antarctic isn’t where the tracers are developed. Other samples using shorter spans agreed, mostly, but they should because they used his formula for calculation.
From Nature Magazine http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../364218a0.html

RECENT results1,2 from two ice cores drilled in central Greenland have revealed large, abrupt climate changes of at least regional extent during the late stages of the last glaciation, suggesting that climate in the North Atlantic region is able to reorganize itself rapidly, perhaps even within a few decades. Here we present a detailed stable-isotope record for the full length of the Greenland Ice-core Project Summit ice core, extending over the past 250 kyr according to a calculated timescale. We find that climate instability was not confined to the last glaciation, but appears also to have been marked during the last interglacial (as explored more fully in a companion paper3) and during the previous Saale-Holstein glacial cycle. This is in contrast with the extreme stability of the Holocene, suggesting that recent climate stability may be the exception rather than the rule. The last interglacial seems to have lasted longer than is implied by the deep-sea SPECMAP record4, in agreement with other land-based observations5,6. We suggest that climate instability in the early part of the last interglacial may have delayed the melting of the Saalean ice sheets in America and Eurasia, perhaps accounting for this discrepancy.

From Committee on the Science of Climate Change, Division on Earth and Life Studies, National Research Council

Over long time scales, outside the time period in which humans could have a substantive effect on global
climate (e.g., prior to the Industrial Revolution), proxy data (information derived from the content of tree rings, cores from marine sediments, pollens, etc.) have been used to estimate the range of natural climate variability. An important recent addition to the collection of proxy evidence is ice cores obtained by international teams of scientists drilling through miles of ice in Antarctica and at the opposite end of the world in Greenland. The results can be used to make inferences about climate and atmospheric composition extending back as long as 400,000 years. These and other proxy data indicate that the range of natural climate variability is in excess of several degrees C on local and regional space scales over periods as short as a decade. Precipitation has also varied widely. For example, there is evidence to suggest that droughts as severe as the “dust bowl” of the 1930s were much more common in the central United States during the 10th to 14th centuries than they have been in the more recent record.
Temperature variations at local sites have exceeded 10°C (18°F) in association with the repeated glacial advances and retreats that occurred over the course of the past million years. It is more difficult to estimate the natural variability of global mean temperature because large areas of the world are not sampled and because of the large uncertainties inherent in temperatures inferred from proxy evidence. Nonetheless, evidence suggests that global warming rates as large as 2°C (3.6°F) per millennium may have occurred during the retreat of the glaciers following the most recent ice age.

I notice the climate wasn’t all sweetness and light before we came along, it’s been cycling for as long as they can tell, sometimes wildly and sometimes very quickly.
They think they know what temperatures were but that’s because nobody has been able to disprove Lorius’ guess yet. It’s not likely they will soon, first because I doubt that’s a high priority at the moment, and just because it’s almost impossible with no records.
Also the climate was far from uniform but highly regional with periods of deviation in different regions at different times. Deviation that may or maynot be reflected in the 400 kyr graph.

btw, I'm amazed how much scientific information is available online that you have to pay to see.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Now we have a graph that show the mean temperature has been swinging up and down for as long as they can speculate. The actual temperatures are questionable because the data come from one place in the Antarctic and are accepted because nobody can disprove them, but we do know the temperature and precipitation wasn't uniform the world over, and the temp precip ratio determines the tracer.
That the co2 sample follows the temperature swings is not a surprise either, nor is it indicative of causation.


The honesty of the government has been called into question. From the Union of Concerned Scientists;
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming...l-warming.html

As Dr. Robert Watson, then Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said in 2001,
" The overwhelming majority of scientific experts, whilst recognizing that scientific uncertainties exist, nonetheless believe that human-induced climate change is already occurring and that future change is inevitable."

UCS agrees with the world's leading climate scientists that the Earth's temperature is rising and that its climate has changed over the last century. The scientific consensus is clear that the rise in temperature and change in climate are being caused in part by human activities.

Mainstream media are beginning to reflect this scientific consensus. But after a decade of controversial reporting and public debate, some skepticism lingers in the public at large and is still rampant among industry groups and their proponents who fear adverse economic impacts from taking action on global warming.
While their main tactic now is to dismiss potential solutions to the problem -- in particular the 1997 Kyoto Protocol to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change -- climate skeptics continue to attack the science in order to undermine an essential and rational basis for cost-effective, sustainable action on this global problem.

But what does it mean to have scientific consensus about a future that is never certain in a world so utterly complex?

"The scientific consensus is clear that the rise in temperature and change in climate are being caused in part by human activities." I didn't think anyone disagreed with that, just wanted to have the effect quantified. How do we act unless we know what things we are doing are causing what?
Now the "government stooges" side.
http://newton.nap.edu/books/0309075742/html/23.html

Modification of the Scientific Text After Completion of the SPM (Summary for Policymakers)
The SPM results from a discussion between the lead authors and government representatives (including also some non-governmental organizations and industry representatives). This discussion, combined with the requirement for consistency, results in some modifications of the text, all of which were carefully documented by the IPCC. This process has resulted in some concern that the scientific basis for the SPM might be altered. To assess this potential problem, the committee solicited written responses from U.S.
coordinating lead authors and lead authors of IPCC chapters, reviewed the WGI draft report and summaries, and interviewed Dr. Daniel Albritton who served as a coordinating lead author for the IPCC WGI Technical Summary. Based on this analysis, the committee finds that no changes were made without the consent of the convening lead authors and that most changes that did occur lacked significant impact. However, some scientists may find fault with some of the technical details, especially if they appear to underestimate uncertainty. The SPM is accompanied by the more representative Technical Summary (TS). The SPM contains cross-references to the full text, which unfortunately is not accessible until a later date, but it
does not cross-reference the accompanying TS.

And at the same link a statement explaining how the IPCC works and sometimes can't get the brightest & best, on board.

The IPCC as Representative of the Science Community
The IPCC process demands a significant time commitment by members of the scientific community. As a result, many climate scientists in the United States and elsewhere choose not to participate at the level of a lead author even after being invited. Some take on less time-consuming roles as contributing authors or reviewers. Others choose not to participate. This may present a potential problem for the future. As the commitment to the assessment process continues to grow, this could create a form of self-selection for the participants. In such a case, the community of world climate scientists may develop cadres with particularly strong feelings about the outcome: some as favorable to the IPCC and its procedures and others negative about the use of the IPCC as a policy instrument. Alternative procedures are needed to ensure that participation in the work of the IPCC does not come at the expense of an individual's scientific career.
In addition, the preparation of the SPM involves both sci-enlists and governmental representatives. Governmental representatives are more likely to be tied to specific government postures with regard to treaties, emission controls, and other policy instruments. If scientific participation in the future becomes less representative and governmental representatives are tied to specific postures, then there is a risk that future IPCC efforts will not be viewed as independent processes.
The United States should promote actions that improve the IPCC process while also ensuring that its strengths are maintained. The most valuable contribution U.S. scientists can make is to continually question basic assumptions and conclusions, promote clear and careful appraisal and presentation of the uncertainties about climate change as well as those areas in which science is leading to robust conclusions, and work toward a significant improvement in the ability to project the future. In the process, we will better define the nature of the problems and ensure that the best possible information is available for policy makers.

So the government wants some of the Summary for Policymakers wording changed. That doesn't sound good.
But the scientists got the approval of the authors and the main document, the actual results, were unchanged. Eh, that's good.

It appears Wolf is right...

Peer reviewers have their own agendas, hobby horses, and pet theories, and woe be to the researcher who presents solid research that goes against conventional wisdom.

I've seen a ton of stories on PBS and in print about scientists starting with Galileo, that paid a heavy price only to be vindicated later. Not all persecution was from religious or secular leaders, but from peers, also.

There seems to be a whole lot of bias, politics and power base building going on...and it's not all from the government.

I'm guessing 99.9% of these scientists are decent people trying to do the right thing, but they have neither the ways nor means to do anything, without some organization to work for them. At the moment it appears to be two choices available;
1- The National Research Council (IPCC) who is compromising a little but has the governments ear.
2- The Union of Concerned Scientists who say they maintain the moral high ground but the policy makers don't listen to.

Of course any organization of people will be comprised of movers/shakers and the rest(read majority) of the members. The personal pride and prejudices of the leaders will have a heavy bearing on any organization.

This Chart showing things that have a heating or cooling effect and how well they are understood, comes from;
http://newton.nap.edu/books/0309075742/html/13.html

[xoxoxoBruce]

That chart shows co2 to add 1.5 watts per square meter. What's that mean? It makes the air a little warmer. From http://newton.nap.edu/books/0309075742/html/12.html

CLIMATE FORCINGS IN THE INDUSTRIAL ERA
Figure 1 summarizes climate forcings that have been introduced during the period of industrial development, between 1750 and 2000, as estimated by the IPCC. Some of these forcings, mainly greenhouse gases, are known quite accurately, while others are poorly measured. A range of uncertainty has been estimated for each forcing, represented by an uncertainty bar or “whisker.” However, these estimates are partly subjective, and it is possible that the true forcing falls outside the indicated range in some cases.

TABLE 1 Removal Times and Climate Forcing Values for Specified Atmospheric Gases and Aerosols Up to the year 2000
Forcing Agent - Approximate Removal Times*- Climate Forcing (W/m2)

Greenhouse Gases
Carbon Dioxide.......................................... >100 years ........1.3 to 1.5
Methane.....................................................10 years ......... 0.5 to 0.7
Tropospheric Ozone......................................10–100 days......0.25 to 0.75
Nitrous Oxide ..............................................100 years......... 0.1 to 0.2
Perfluorocarbon Compounds (Including SF6).....>1000 years........0.01

Fine Aerosols
Sulfate ..................................................... 10 days...........–0.3 to –1.0
Black Carbon................................................10 days........... 0.1 to 0.8

*A removal time of 100 years means that much, but not all, of the substance would be gone in 100 years. Typically, the amount remaining at the end of 100 years is 37%; after 200 years 14%; after 300 years 5%; after 400 years 2%

So it's agreed that co2 is the biggest factor when it comes to man adding to warming. And from my first post, anthropogenic CO2 produces less than 0.1 of one percent of the greenhouse effect, according to Dr Lindzen.

1-Man produces less than .01% of the greenhouse effect with what is far and away his largest contribution.

2-Man may have/has probably, pushed the natural swing of the climate along quicker and it may go higher because of that. But we just don't know.

3- Running around trying to put a guilt trip on people is sometimes effective for putting a guilt trip on people, but little more.

4-There are people using Global Warming as a tool to achieve political ends, or coerce people to do what the Chicken Littles think they should do.

According to the following graph, the rest of the world is taking a larger role, too.

[bluesdave]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

According to the following graph, the rest of the world is taking a larger role, too.

Bruce, as I told you in my first post in this thread, I do work for a project that uses climate data. The project's whole reason for being, is research into climate change. No one is saying that America is doing the damage all on its own. The whole western world is, and the developing world is starting to increase industrial development (and thus, emissions), at an alarming rate. It does not end there.

You also have to look at the pollution we pour into the world's oceans, and forest destruction (you, yourself have acknowledged this in your posts). As I tried to explain once before, the story is not a simple one. You cannot just pull out selected figures and draw a conclusion. As you have discovered, there is not a great amount of the research (detailed reports), available on the web - especially up to date, current research. What you will find (as you have done, are "press releases" and summaries). Our research is still reported on paper. I am trying to find a web site that does show why man's contribution matters, but it is very difficult to find one that I am satisfied with. I agree with you in part, that some of the research is used for political ends. You have to remember that most climate research is either directly (government departments and agencies), or indirectly paid for by governments (grants to universities). So politics always comes into it.

If I can find a good web site, I will post its address.